Whatever Happened to Evangelism?

I was brought to a saving knowledge of Christ in the fall of 1979. The man most responsible for that conversion was my uncle, Bob Knuckles. We called him Bobbie. Bobbie married my aunt Lois in Cleveland, Ohio. Bobbie and Lois were like many other young couples in the 70s. They liked to party and have a good time. But during the middle of the partying, the booze, and the drugs, God transformed both my uncle Bobbie and aunt Lois through the power of the gospel. Lois was my dad's younger sister. We lived in a small town in in the coal fields in Logan County, West Virginia. Life was simple in those days. The town we lived in couldn't have had more than 200 people living in it. The most exciting thing to do then was to get together with a handful of friends and play football in Jill Atkins's front yard. Jill had a huge front yard. Afterwards, we would all walk down to Amie and Cletus' carry out and by a Royal Cola soda and sit on the steps of the post office bragging about the plays we had just made. I was athletic, participating in all three sports as kid. My favorite was football. As I grew into my teens and life started taking some direction for me, little did I know that everything was about to change. My uncle Bobbie would visit frequently. We lived beside my grandfather and when his children came in to see him, we were right there to enjoy the company as well. It was always a treat to see my uncles and aunts. There wasn't much going on in that small town in the middle of nowhere, WV. So when family came down for a visit, it was exciting. Bobbie, being a new convert to Christ, began to share the gospel with the entire family. We never attended church. I had only been inside a church twice by the time I was 14. One by one, family members begin confessing their sins to God and conversions started taking place. I kept hearing about the end of time, the judgment of God, and how God would hold me accountable for my sin. At first I balked at the message as any unregenerate 14 might do. But the message of Christ started to bother me. I became inquisitive. I started asking questions instead of avoiding the conversations. And then on a Tuesday night, I decided it was time to make a change. I went to a prayer meeting at the Crawley Creek Church of God for the sole purpose of going to the alter to "get saved." This is what I thought one had to do. Little did I realize at that time that God has already opened my eyes and regenerated my heart. I was simply doing what comes natural for a newly born again person: I was making it know to all that I believe Jesus is the Christ and profess Him as my Redeemer and Savior. It wasn't long after that that I got my first Bible: a Thompson Chain Reference. Wow! I loved that Bible. And it wasn't terribly long after that that I began sharing my faith and witnessing to friends about the life-changing power of the gospel of Christ. We would go into the town of Logan and hand out tracks. On one occasion I even went to Cleveland, OH. and passed out tracks and witnessed to the gospel there. It is 31 years later now and I still share the gospel with unbelievers as often as I can. But I have noticed that this practice has fallen on hard times since those early years in Logan, WV. I think there are several possible contributors to this phenomenon and I will mention a few ever so briefly.

Everyone loves Jesus
I was looking at a statistic the other day that claims that nearly 80% of people who live in the United States are Christian. Now if you live in a different culture, hang onto to your hat. I will get to some like reasons for why people don't share the gospel in your society. However, I am not convinced that it is as big a problem as it is in American society. As soon as you ask someone if they are a follower of Christ, if they believe in Jesus, they answer yes. But this also begs the question, kinda. Many people don't even get this far.

People have little confidence in their ability to articulate the gospel
Some people are new in the faith and are uncertain of how to talk to someone about Christ. Fair enough. My response would be talk to them about Christ in relation to you and how your life has been impacted by the gospel. Once you have begun to really dig into the Word of God and have a better understanding of the gospel itself, and how to present it, then you can change the conversations a little. But don't feel like you have to be a theologian to share Christ with friends.

The effects of pluralistic philosophies
We have spent years thinking that the worse thing we could possibly do is be closed or narrow minded on a subject. We have been conditioned to think that we should tolerate competing beliefs and worldviews. Hence it follows that presenting a gospel that leads people to eternal life if they accept it or eternal damnation if they don't is about as unpopular as the Queen making a toast down at the local Irish pub. The last thing we want to do is be perceived as a narrow-minded bigot. We have been bullied in our culture not to cut against the grain. The fear of man has great sway over us in this country. And worse, many Christians do not think Christianity is the only right religion. They believe there are numerous other paths that also lead to God. This makes witnessing irrelevant.

The practice of confrontation
Face it. One of the most difficult things to do is confront someone. We hate this. In a society where tolerance is the highest ethical practice and pluralism the most esteemed philosophical outlook, approaching the subject of the exclusive claims of Christ is not such an easy task. We do not want to offend folks and there is a very real threat that offense could result from talking to someone about how they live their life and where they will spend eternity. This fear of confrontation serves as a huge impediment to evangelism in our culture.

Radical individualism
Americans place the highest value on individualism. People's religious views are personal. How they live their life is personal. Their relationship with God and where they attend church are private matters. And not only that, given the prevalence of pluralism, this information is really quite sensitive not to mention, none of our business. We are taught we must respect people's basic right to privacy and confronting people with a gospel that is invasive and exclusive is offensive to people on so many levels.

Fear of man
Sometimes we don't share the gospel because we are afraid of what might happen. It may be a relationship we have with someone who is unsaved that we don't want to jeopardize. We may fear that they will end the relationship if we even attempt to approach the subject. Others may fear that they will lose their job if they are outspoken regarding their faith. There are real situations where some Christians may be jailed for sharing their faith. And in some instances, one could lose their life for sharing the gospel.

Conclusion
What are we to do? We could do what many in the Christian church have done in Western culture. We could change the gospel. We could drop the concept of exclusivity from the claims of Christ. Some have done that and managed to grow their churches, win friends, and influence people (maybe). We could make the gospel into a success philosophy rather than the life changing power that it is. We could take the Joel Olsteen approach of telling people the gospel is really about living your best life now. If you really want to be a successful business woman, mother, father, teacher or just fill in the blank, then Christianity is the key. Or we could do what Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Disciples did. Jesus' first sermon was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Matt. 4:17] John the Baptist's sermon never changed, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [Matt. 3:2] Peter's first sermon was, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." [Acts 2:38] Jesus was loving and caring in how he handled everyone. But loving and caring took on different methods from time to time. For the woman taken in adultery, Jesus was soft and tender as he told her that he did not condemn her. But he also said "go and sin not more." In other words, no more adultery. In our society, even telling folks to cease from practicing an ungodly lifestyle is out of vogue. But then again, the world has never liked being told what to do. Remember what John the Baptist said to Herod regarding his brother, Phillips wife? It got John his head handed to him quite literally. Did that possibility keep the prophet from thundering God's word. In John's day, a prophet was feared and respected to a degree. Oddly enough this did not stop people from killing them. Even Herod had some trepidation about taking John's life, but he did so anyway. His sin was more important to him than God's prophet. But in our day, we have even transformed Christ into a modern projection of our culture. We think that Jesus was a soft spoken man who was SO sensitive to our sins that he would never rebuke someone or threaten someone with their unbelief. But is this an accurate representation of the historical record we find in the gospels?  In Matt. 7:5 Jesus says, You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye." By our standards, that doesn't sound very nice. Jesus says in Matt. 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. Wow. That sounds a bit narrow and harsh as well. Jesus says, "Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." [Matt. 10:28] That sounds like a threat to me. Again Jesus said, "Don't think I am come to bring peace on the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." [10:34] Is this really the same Jesus that we hear about in some of the sermons and discussion about Jesus today? In Matt. 12:34 Jesus said, "You brood of vipers, how can you being evil, speak what is good." Woe! That is over the top. Jesus was not the soft-spoken gentle type we might imagine in many of our modern cultures today. Jesus was very different from our modern projections of Him. The gospel works to convert men to Christ because God is the one who is sovereign over salvation. God calls and elects those He has chosen for salvation from the foundation of the world. [2 Thess. 2:13] He has chosen the foolishness of preaching to do so. It takes the power of God to open the eyes of blind, unregenerate sinners. [1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-8]

Don't be afraid to share the gospel of Christ in any culture. There is nothing greater than to be persecuted for the cause of Christ. Do you love man more than God? Do you fear man more than God? If you do, I would say to you that you should repent of such devotion to man and submit to God. The kingdom of heaven is at stake.  I leave you with the words of Peter as he wrote to a community of believers that were in serious peril, on the brink of real persecution: "Do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." [1 Peter 3:14-15]

The Plight of American Christianity

Hedonism, pluralism, relativism, humanism, empiricism, individualism, socialism, and post-modernism. These are but a handful of the godless philosophies that permeate American culture. The pattern of American culture is as antithetical to the Christian worldview as any pattern could possibly be. One may retort that atheistic cultures are far worse, citing perhaps the lack of religious and other basic freedoms that are suppressed within them. After all, in some cultures, Christians are not free to worship, witness, or engage in a number of other sacred practices. However, there is something far more disturbing about a culture that murders 1.5 million unborn babies each year, accepts, encourages, and promotes the practice of homosexuality, and practices the highest divorce rate of any other country in the world, all the while professing to be distinctly “Christian” in its worldview. Ever wonder why this is?

To be sure, there is a distinct gap between what we see described in the Bible as “Christian,” and what we see accepted in modern culture as Christian. For those of you reading this in other parts of the world, perhaps some of it may resonate with you as well. It is certainly not my intention to target American Christianity as if these problems are isolated to American culture. However, American culture truly has some unique cultural issues that other societies do not seem to have. For example, the divorce rate in American culture is higher than any other culture in the world. Yet the percentage of people who say they are Christian in the United States is relatively high at 78%. What is responsible for this gap?

As mentioned at the outset, there are a number of competing philosophies and religions in American culture. It would be naïve for one to think that these philosophies have little to do with influencing, to one degree or another, a number of our ultimate philosophical commitments. At least two contributing factors come together, in my opinion, to create this phenomenon that I call the God gap. Actually, there are three. First, we are a product of our culture. We are exposed to a pleathora of philosophies from the time we are young children. It is only reasonable that these philosophies weave their way, in one form or another, to one degree or another, into our thinking, our outlook, our worldview. Such results are about as avoidable as getting in the water without getting wet. The second problem is somewhat related because this is a way of thinking that traverses most other ways of thinking. In American culture there is this idea of openness, or tolerance as we call it. Americans consider themselves very open minded. In many cases, some Americans even equate this open-minded tolerance with intelligence quotient. Closed minded or narrow minded people are viewed us unintelligent, and uncultured in many cases. Others believe this open-minded tolerance to be the single greatest ethic one can achieve. To them, closed minded, intolerant people are bigots, cruel, and evil. In fact, to some, the only real evil that exists in the world is the evil of intolerance. Hence, this explains why, in American Christianity, the most quoted verse in all the Bible has shifted from John 3:16 “For God so loved the world,” to Matthew 7:1, “Judge not.” And finally, the third problem is, well, the reason that the first two problems exist in the first place not to mention every other problem that every other culture faces today, id est, sin.

These numerous philosophies are deeply imbedded in our sub-conscious mind. We find ourselves thinking according to these patterns without even realizing we are doing so. It’s like breathing. We do it without consciously thinking about it. Now add to these conditions the fact that we have moved wholly away from developing critical thinking skills and we have a recipe for a huge gap between Christianity in word, and Christianity in deed. One may call it Christianity in theory in contradistinction to Christianity in fact. Critical thinking’s practice of thinking about one’s thinking, what we call metacognition, in practice can help with this gap, but only insofar as one’s cognition has been transformed by God’s power and is in the process of being reformed or renewed by God’s word. This goes back to the sin problem mentioned earlier as the third problem.

We are all converted to Christ with a sin nature that has a way of thinking that will tend to reject God as we begin the long slow process of sanctification. Without realizing it, we view some of these patterns of thinking as simply, the right way to look at things. For example, the American dream of prosperity, home ownership, cars, and other materialistic possessions transfers into Christianity and becomes God’s blessings on us in our way of thinking. That is not biblical thinking, but many if not most American Christians think it is. American Christians tend to think that America is somehow God’s favorite country in the world. If you were to listen to some, one would think that God is an American. God is not an American. But our mind has been so macerated with this kind of thinking that we fail to recognize it. This is why it is so important that all Christians immediately begin the process of renewing their mind with God’s word at the point of conversion so that they can move away from cultural conditioning and be transformed by the renewing of their minds. Metacognition will help, but only as it uses the Word of God as the standard by which we think about our thinking. Eventually, all those philosophies that have infected our thinking will be identified one by one and weeded out over time. However, make no mistake about it. This is a long process and it takes tremendous effort. Diligence is the word that comes to mind.

The second contributor to the plight of American Christianity is tolerance. It is the reason that many Americans no longer take their Christianity seriously. The idea of tolerance has been married to the concept of “Once-Saved-Always-Saved,” to form an unholy alliance that has resulted in the degradation of the Christian lifestyle to the point that it is impossible to tell who is a Christian and who isn’t a Christian by how they conduct their lives. It use to be that biblical correction served as the tool by which genuine Christians were regained and purity was maintained in the church. However, pluralism and an extreme attitude of diversity and tolerance has seen the disappearance of church discipline. Now, everything is a private matter and no one has the right to call us on the carpet for how we conduct our lives. Such behavior is seen as intolerant, narrow minded, intrusive, an invasion of privacy, and exclusivism. Americans value individualism as much as any culture in the world if not more. That individual spirit and attitude has led to the thinking that fellow believers, pastors, and churches do not have the right to expect us to maintain biblical standards in our lives. My relationship with God is between me and God. A few years back there was a major Christian artist that openly left her husband, without biblical grounds, divorced him and married her bass player. Rather than respond with moral outrage at this overt rejection of God’s standard and open display of contempt for God’s design for marriage, the Christian community rallied around her in total support. What the church should have done is rallied around her marriage to help her save her marriage at all cost. But since American Christianity has displaced godliness with personal happiness, the church had no moral power to respond appropriately.

Tolerance is a self-defeating concept. Complete tolerance is impossible. People who contend that tolerance is the greatest of all ethical values fail to realize that they also do not tolerate people who disagree with them. Why is it that those who promote the homosexual lifestyle are viewed as tolerant and those who reject it viewed as intolerant bigots? Why isn’t the person who is for homosexuality viewed as intolerant of the idea that sexual relations should only be between a man and a woman? People who are tolerant exclude people who they consider to be intolerant of their views. Aren’t they doing the same thing that the people whom they claim to be intolerant bigots do? The answer is yes they are. The question I have is why do we let them get away with it without challenging them? We are charged to stop false teachings and every thought that opposes Christ and take them captive. In order to do that, we must think more biblically and more critically about our thinking. Paul said, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” (Phil 2:5) Paul also commands, “Set you mind on things above, not on things that are on the earth.” (Col. 3:2)

We have a problem with infectious worldly philosophies, and an attitude of tolerance that is antithetical to the rudimentary elements of Christianity, not to mention a sin nature that is predisposed to wander from biblical thinking every chance it gets. Pastors, teachers, elders, and professors have their work cut out for them if Christianity is not to become an insignificant, irrelevant religious social club whose ability to influence people and turn the world upside down is forever relegated to the archives of ancient history.

A True Passion for Christ - John 4:14

Jesus said, “but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

James Montgomery Boice writes, “This is what the Lord Jesus Christ is saying. He is promising to place a spring within the life of anyone who will come to him. This spring will be eternal, free, joyous, and self-dependent. But he is also warning you that you will never be able to bulldoze anything over it!” [Boice, James M. The Gospel of John, vol. I, 280]

As we close 2010 and reflect on the events that affected us during the year and the actions we engaged in over the course of the year, we must give consideration to Christ. A true passion for Christ produces a burning hot desire within the Christian to please Him! Over the last year we no doubt have made mistakes we would love to take back. We have sinned in small ways and perhaps in egregious ways. There have been numerous disappointments and failed expectations. However, regardless of the number of failures we may have encountered, the number of times we can remember specifically letting someone down, or even worse, missing the mark of holy living before a loving heavenly Father, the spring of living waters placed in us by God Himself continues to bubble up within. Yes, we disappoint one another. Yes, we sin against our God again and again in small and even big ways. We experience unrealized hopes and expectations at work, at home, and even in the church. Our struggle not to adopt cultural attitudes that run contrary to the mind of Christ ebbs and flows from one day to the next. Yet, I am reminded that God holds me in the palm of his hand. Jesus said that of all the Father has given me, I will lose nothing! Peter said we are protected or kept by the power of God. My continuing in Christ does not depend on me or my self-determined will. It depends on the power of the One who has called me to Himself. God keeps me! Christ implanted a spring of life within me that I realized 31 years ago now. That water is the only water I need and it is the only water I want. Once we drink that water, Jesus says we will never thirst again.

We will never thirst again because this water exists within and we drink from it continuously. It is the passion that is Christ and that we experience as we live our life to please Him. For the genuine Christian, obeying Christ in every place we know to obey Him is not an option. The Christian does not come to a commandment issued by his Lord and Master and ask whether or not he will obey it. It goes without saying! The believer, having been firmly planted in Christ, and having Christ firmly planted within does not ask how little she may do to qualify for the kingdom. She asks how much she may do to please her master. As far as the Christian is concerned, there is no such thing as enough obedience, enough love, or enough service. The passion of Christ floods our heart as a lively spring bursting forth with its sole aim to glorify God with a life of humble obedience and service to the Father.

Jonathan Edwards remarks, “From hence it follows, that in those gracious exercises and affections which are wrought in the saints, through the saving influences of the Spirit of God, there is a new inward perception or sensation of their minds, entirely different in its nature and kind from any thing that ever their minds were the subjects of before they were sanctified.” [Edwards, Jonathan. On Religious Affections] The passion for Christ that is produced in the whole person of the Christian is a result, not of the volition of the individual, but rather, God’s Spirit as He presses us into the kingdom. This is a desire stronger than any other desire to do what we know honors God. The absence of such a passion to please God indicates a lack of grace that should give rise to great concern for the person. If there is a sense of this passion lacking in the desires of the individual, the person would do well to fall before a loving heavenly Father and beg for mercy, repent of this lack of desire to obey, and plead with God to restore to him the joy of his salvation. Every Christian experiences times of this sort in their life. But the true believer responds with despair and pleads with God to take the sin away from them and restore to them the righteous desires implanted there by the Holy Spirit. Edwards continues, “It was before observed, that the affection of love is as it were the fountain of all affection; and particularly, that Christian love is the fountain of all gracious affections. Now the divine excellency of God, and of Jesus Christ, the word of God, his works, ways, &c. is the primary reason, why a true saint loves these things; and not any supposed interest that he has in them, or any conceived benefit that he has received or shall receive from them.” [Edwards, On Religious Affections]

Notice that if one wants to fill a well with dirt and rocks to remove the water, they may do so. But the same cannot be accomplished with a stream of water. You cannot hold it back but so much. Place a line of dirt across the stream today and return tomorrow to see what you will find. The stream will push around, through, or over the obstacle. The same is true with the living water that bubbles up within us. Indeed the passion for Christian living may run low at times as if in spiritual drought. But the water of Christian passion and life is never entirely extinguished. The stream always returns to its proper levels as the Spirit, in good time, provides the rain necessary to return the waters rightly. Christian love serves as the predominant fruit that is prominently displayed in the life of the Christian for all to see. Christian love is a selfless love that serves first to please God through active obedience regardless of the cost of that obedience. Indeed, the cost of godly obedience can be high. In some cases it may cost one their source of living. In other cases, more severe of course, it may cost them their life or the lives of their family. It may cost them their freedom. In America, it rarely costs so much. Not intending to indict those of us who are spoiled American Christians, the most it ever costs us is the selfish desires of the radical and extreme individualism of which we have become accustomed. Our condition is sometimes so poor that even ministers cannot find the courage to help us overcome ourselves in this regard. The plight of American Christianity, both in reformed and evangelical circles is dire. Our sermons and teachings are shallow. We dare not meddle in the affairs of givers who may, in their individualistic custom, take their gifts and move down the street to a church that suits them! Is this the passion of Christianity? Does this reflect the heart that burns for God? Alas, we are in a backslidden condition and sorely in need of a revival individually and corporately in the American church. For those Christians who find themselves in a different culture, where the gospel of Christ and a passion for loving God persist in the Christian community, you must pray for the plight of the American Christian. On our behalf, plead with God for revival as you have never done before.

2010 has come and gone. Where is our passion for Christ? Is it in word only? Have we convinced ourselves that passion and love for God is possible without complete surrender to his expressed will for our lives? Have we deceived ourselves into thinking that we can adopt a lifestyle of materialism, hedonism, and radical individualism while at the same time possessing a vibrant and passionate faith? If so, we have buried our heads in the sand. Did we enter 2010 living a lifestyle of blatant rebellion before God and exit it in the same condition with the same self-justifying mindset? Have we moved at all in our spiritual growth? Do we have broken relationships that we entered and exited 2010 still in a broken condition? Are our churches experiencing a revival of passion for Christ that is being clearly expressed in loving relationships, unity, peace, the teaching and preaching of sound doctrine, and a discipleship process that serves to help everyone build close relationships and maintain the necessary level of personal accountability that is, to this point sorely lacking in the Christian community?

If we find ourselves exiting 2010 in the same spiritual condition in which we entered it that is regrettable and unfortunate. The Christian life is not a life of stagnation. It is a life of passion, beauty, love, and vibrant faith. It is a life of movement! The believer is ever growing, learning, and transforming. Are we more like Christ today than we were when 2010 began? If not, something must change. And it must begin to change now! What does living a successful Christian life before God with passion look like for you in 2011? What things must change in order for you to change? Write them down and create a plan. Grab a fellow brother or sister in the church and share these goals with them. And then ask them to meet with you regularly and hold you accountable for engaging in the new behaviors you have outlined. If you do not change things, nothing is going to change. Will we continue to devote an aberrant amount of time to self? Will the bible continue to be neglected in reading and living as we prefer to devote our time and attention to television, material goals, jobs, and shallow relationships?

There are three kinds of people in the world today: people who make things happen, people who watch things happen, and people who wonder what is happening. Which one are you. The Christian life is a life of passionate change. A passion for Christ means that we are constantly moving, changing, and transforming our lives and churches more and more into the image of Christ. Now is the time to address the behaviors and attitudes that are getting in the way of your desire to be more like Christ. If there are open issues in your life that are causing tension, sin, and other conditions that run contrary to God’s expressed will, now is the time to move expeditiously to begin to bring closure. Only make sure that this closure has, at is foundation, a desire to carry out God’s mandates above all else. What is your plan for change? The only reason that you should not create and execute a "change plan" in 2011 is if you are content with who you are as a Christian right now. If that is the case, then feel free to ignore this article and pray for the rest of us. Here is hoping that 2011 will be a year of tremendous change, passionate transformation, and radical revival in all our lives.

Jonathan Edwards says, "Truly gracious affections differ from those that are false and delusive, in that they naturally beget and promote such a spirit of love, meekness, quietness, forgiveness, and mercy as appeared in Christ." [Edwards, On Religious Affections]

Critial Thinking Christian - IV

The Reverberations of Feminist Hermeneutics in the Reformed and Evangelical Christian Communities:

Recovering the Model of Male Authority in the Church & Family

Anthony Thiselton writes,

“But it is precisely here that socio-pragmatic hermeneutics reveals its pastoral inadequacy. For if all claims to patient exegesis are merely internally generated by communities governed by interests, no claim can be ranked in revelation to any other claim except among those who share the same ethnocentric interests.” [Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 588]

Such an approach to hermeneutics leads to cultural relativism. This method sets the stage for Christians engaging in the unfortunate and sinful practice of transforming the text rather than being transformed by the text. The purpose of this article is to discuss the shape that feminist hermeneutics takes as it is subtly, and in many instances, unwittingly adopted by women and men alike in the reformed and evangelical churches. The aim of this article is to help believers in the Christian community recognize these tendencies as they examine certain paradigms for church and family life that have arisen as of late in Western American culture. The aim is to subject certain feminist behaviors in the Christian community to sound critical thinking practices that have been reformed by Scripture so that we can identify those cases where our family and church life are missing the mark as it relates to how we should behave in terms of these respective relationships.

These issues have been discussed in churches within the Reformed and Evangelical traditions on countless occasions. There is no shortage of materials on the subject of husband-wife relationships or the role of women and men in the church. The typical format for these discussions is geared toward making sure believers can communicate and relate to one another so as to have a happy, healthy relationship at home and at church. The problem with this aim is that it does not go deep enough. The question that is begged by such an approach is, “what does it take for me to be happy in my marriage and in my church?” Far too often, the answer is presupposed. We want our spouses to make us feel loved, respected, appreciated, and important. We want our church to focus on a certain style of music, to have a vibrant and entertaining youth program, to teach classes that help us succeed in the world, to be better husbands, wives, and parents. We want our pastors to have charisma, panache, and deliver dynamic sermons that are culturally relevant and speak to the many issues we face week in and week out. But is this really what marriage and church life are supposed to be about? In this paradigm, marriage and church life are not at all God-focused. It isn’t even other focused. It is focused entirely on self. It is this ‘self’ focus that has opened the door to many of the problems we face in the Christian community. While the emphasis of this article is on the ramifications of feminist hermeneutics on the family and the church, the aberrant focus on self does not end there.

Our actions demonstrate what we believe far more than our words. Therefore, we must take care to examine our behavior daily if it is our goal to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. While I am personally unaware of any woman within the ranks of the Reformed or Evangelical churches I have been associated with over the years outwardly holding to overt claims of feminist hermeneutics, I have witnessed more than one or two engaging in behavior that would indicate that they at least think more like feminists than they would openly admit. And it is precisely this behavior that this article is concerned to address.

The Question: What should happen when a husband and wife cannot agree on a course of action for something that involves their lives or home in one way or another?

Most of the scenarios that are usually presented in the teaching materials on this subject are so general that everyone can agree that husbands and wives make decisions together. And for the most part, that is how we function and is as it should be. A good male leader will not lead by abrasive force or harshness. However, there are situations in which the husband and wife cannot agree on a course of action. What does the Bible say about that specific situation? This is where feminist hermeneutics and theology have infected the minds of many pastors, husbands, and wives to the point that they have adopted a paradigm that isn’t biblical. A major contention from feminist proponents suggests that male headship is a result of the fall and that before the fall there was no such thing as male headship. Moreover, many feminist proponents will refer to Gal. 3:28 where Paul says there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. So we must decide what to do when we are faced with a decision where the husband and wife cannot agree on a certain course of action.

What makes this decision necessary? The reason the decision is necessary is, first, there will be times, and they may be frequent, that a couple cannot agree on a course of action. Second, the couple desires to honor God in their lives as well as their marriage. Third, practically speaking, sometimes a course of action is absolutely essential and not taking ‘one of the forks in the road’ is not an option. Hence it follows that a formal way for dealing with these situations is not only prudent, but necessary.

What is recommended and on what grounds? An examination of Scripture is necessary in order to help husbands and wives, and churches for that matter make decisions when there is disagreement between spouses on what that decision should be. Feminist hermeneutics contends that the Bible was written by men and hence has a hierarchical approach that unfairly favors male leadership. While conservative bible-believing women would argue that they do not think this way, often times their behavior betrays them. But feminist hermeneutics begins with the end in mind and places certain impositions on the text that fit what was earlier dubbed as socio-pragmatic hermeneutics. It looks for all sorts of ways to reinterpret the relevant texts in an effort to accommodate autonomous feminist philosophies. Other women within evangelical churches are rebellious in other ways. I remember the story of the woman who was living with a man and attempting to maintain her membership at a solid Baptist church in the south. Her elders came to her on several occasions and confronted her with her sin and asked her to repent of this behavior. She refused to respond to her spiritual leaders who were rightly applying Scripture to her situation. In the end, the elders had to take the correction to the final step of excommunication. Rather than repent, she left the church and took the public letter the elders sent out to the church to Fox News. Was this the kind of attitude she should have been demonstrating to the world or the Christian community? Of course not! But she had clearly bought into the notion that women have no obligation to submit to advice and guidance that they do not agree with. She viewed the elders as male control freaks who were intruding on her personal life without any right to do so. Scripture explicitly instructs her to submit to elders who are caring for her soul in a godly style.

I once had a woman who was taking counseling classes sign up for a class I was teaching on Hermeneutics. This was a very basic, undergraduate course that I taught at a Bible institute that I started at a church I use to attend. She was incensed after I devoted half a class walking through the entire chapter of Jeremiah 29 so that they could see the error of the current rage on Jer. 29:11. She was so distraught that she sent me a hand-written letter containing several derogatory remarks about “my” interpretive method. This was a person who hadn’t taken a course in theology, exegesis, or hermeneutics her entire life. I was a male leader in the church and she did not hesitate to correct me in the most unpleasant manner possible. I have even had women who were supposed godly, mature woman attempt to correct my teaching rudely, in front of an entire class I was teaching. God has not called a female to the role of rebuking or correcting male leaders in the church in any way, especially in front of an entire class. I am sure that if you were to observe these women, you would think that by all accounts, they are bible-believing, God-fearing, conservative Christians who would naturally reject feminist tendencies. And for the most part, they are. However, subtly, Satan has crept in and they have adopted some of the more nuanced ideas of feminist thinking.

Another good example would be the wife who demands that the family attend a particular church while the husband has expressed a clear desire to attend a different church. He has lovingly instructed his family on the matter of how to select a biblical church to no avail. The wife desires to attend the church that is larger, more exciting, and more dynamic, has a better music program, some drama, and a robust youth program filled with entertaining activities for the children. What advice should we give this couple? How should the wife be thinking regarding her husband’s role as head of the family? How does Scripture inform her of how she should behave in this situation? Does she in fact have the right to go against the wishes of her husband and attend the church of her choice? The wife should always be thinking in terms of “how do I honor, obey, and glorify my God in this situation?” If every couple approached every situation with this question in mind first, many issues would be completely avoided in the first place. Some may say this is an overly simplistic approach. It may read that way in an article but when you try living it out in real life, it is anything but simplistic thanks to a nature that is constantly bent to sin.

As it relates to this decision, what are the options/alternatives? The man could capitulate as many men do in our culture for the sake of harmony. Hence he could allow his wife to lead as opposed to leading himself. However, is this God’s expressed will for how men should spiritually lead their families? This is one option. The man could slam his proverbial fist against the table and lay down the law. But is this how Christ leads the church? The man could agree to alternate from week to week or month to month but this would seem another form of capitulation. The couple could agree to attend different churches, but such a decision is hardly demonstrative of family unity and male leadership. The man could lovingly work with his family to help them understand God’s criteria of what makes for a healthy church. He could decide to help his family understand that the church does not exist to entertain, nor is it there to meet our selfish needs and desires. It is a living Christian community where we live and move and relate to fellow believers in a way that helps us honor Christ with our lives in all that we do.

What are the possible consequences involved in this decision? If the wrong decision is made, the family would be guilty of attending a church for all the wrong reasons. The wife would be guilty of sinning against God by not voluntarily and graciously submitting to the leadership of her husband. Both parents run the risk of modeling a marriage and family life that is out of accord with God’s design. The spiritual growth of each family member will be compromised and placed at risk if the church is not a spiritually healthy and vibrant church. The consequences tout court could be devastating.

How important are these consequences? Nothing is more important than the spiritual health and well-being of the family. The consequences are substantial and therefore the decision is crucial.

How can the husband carry out this decision? He should carry it out with much prayer, preparation, and diplomacy. It would be unwise to be insensitive to his wife and children. Above all else, he should demonstrate a high degree of patience and lead his family through prayer and a thorough examination of the biblical material together as a unit. By doing so he is likely to retain their respect, love and affection.

God has something very specific to say to wives as it relates to their role in creation, the church, and the family. Your attitude as a woman/wife should be that you were created by God for God. God did not create you to lead the family. He did not create Eve and then Adam. He created Adam and then Eve. God’s sovereign plan and his expressed will for women is that they should honor, respect, and follow the leadership of their husbands in all things so long as those things do not involve sin. God has not ordained wives to lead husbands and make the final decisions in the family. Yet many women only honor their husband’s leadership when they agree with it. Some women refuse to follow the husband when they do not agree with his decision. Again, the woman is created by God for God and God reserves the right to determine the role of women in the church. Many women, even in conservative churches fall prey to an egalitarian spirit without even realizing the sinfulness of such behavior. They set examples for their sons and daughters that are ungodly. The reject God’s expressed will for the family in preference for the desires of their own heart. Simply put, their agenda is not God's agenda and God's agenda is not their agenda. Some of these decisions are more serious than others, but nevertheless, the effects are still present. A woman should have the attitude that God is her God and that His will is her will regardless of how she feels about it. Her desire should be to please God with her behavior and to demonstrate that she accepts the fact that God is truly Lord over her life by doing what God instructs without question or hesitation. A slave has no right to refuse her Master’s beckoning. A Christian woman has no right to oppose her husband or the male leadership of her church so long as these men are not asking her to sin. She does not have to agree with the counsel of her husband or her spiritual leaders, but she does have to submit to it.

Today there are women in the church who refuse to follow the leadership of their husbands. They may see some of their decisions as minuscule and therefore inconsequential. Other women call into question everything the leadership in the church does. They feel free to challenge doctrinal teachings, strategic decisions, and a variety of other decisions that male leaders deem right and proper given their unique circumstances. Such behavior is unambiguously condemned in Scripture, and therefore condemned by God. Still some women not only refuse to follow their husbands, they refuse to follow their pastors. They have thrown off every piece of advice given to them by their husband and their pastors and have decided it right and proper to follow their own course as their heart so chooses. Such egregious error is a brazen demonstration of rebellion and if done publicly places the person in the position of creating a public scandal in the Christian community. This is the epitome of feminist philosophy expressed in the Christian community. However, far more often it is the little things that pass under the radar that create the most problems in the family and the church. The insistence on service times, music styles, and class offerings are the items that catch us off guard and cause us to sin. Sin is the rejection of God’s expressed will for our lives as given in his word. We reject God by refusing to obey his instructions for us. So many people think that you are not rejecting God so long as you don’t actually say the words, “I reject God.” A homosexual Christian once said, I am not rejecting God I am rejecting your idea of God. When we refuse to do God’s word, we reject God. He that is of God keeps God’s word. One cannot decide to adopt a lifestyle that reflects deliberate continuous rejection of God's word without also rejecting God. Kevin Vanhoozer writes,

"The vocation of the theological interpreter of Scripture is to render judgments - ethical, epistemological, and yes, metaphysical - concerning what is "meet and right" for Christians to affirm of God on the basis of the various modes of divine self-showing, self-giving, and self-saying." [Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, 198]

God is who He has revealed Himself to be in the person of Jesus Christ and throughout the unfolding historical revelation of sacred Scripture. If He reveals Himself to be for or against certain behaviors, then this is who God is. Deus est constans.

Encounter with an Atheist Scientist

Recently, I was privileged to engage in a discussion with a lady who was one-year away from completing her Ph.D. in a particular field of science. When she discovered I hold a doctorate in theology, she asked the question, “does this mean you study religions?” I responded “a little, perhaps.” She proceeded to inform me that she loved to study the different religions and that she was an atheist. Now when someone informs you that they are an atheist, it is always wise to qualify what they mean by such a claim. Many people are really agnostics while using the word atheist to describe themselves. An atheist is one who denies positively that there is no God. An agnostic contends that you cannot know if God exists. Overly simplistic, perhaps, but that will suffice for purposes of this article. So I asked this scientist if in fact she rejected the idea that God exists and she emphatically said “of course, I am a scientist and I do no believe in anything that cannot be proven using the scientific method.” This last statement contains a presupposition that will inevitably cause the dear scientist’s view tremendous grief. The scientific method relies on the epistemological method of empiricism in order to arrive at truth. Empiricism contends that all knowledge comes through the senses and that nothing can be demonstrated to be true outside of empirical verification. Before continuing with this interaction, a short review of the problems of empiricism and the scientific method are in order. This will serve as the basis for how I challenged the scientist’s basic assumption: the scientific method is the only valid means by which truth (or the highest probability that something is true) can be known. Her conclusion then would be that unless you can demonstrate something empirically, you should not believe it exists. Remember, this is her basis for rejecting the idea of God. In her view, God cannot be proven using empirical methods, and therefore she is justified in rejecting the idea of God.

Problems of Empiricism

The first problem is the issue of verification. It is clear that knowledge of all facts cannot be subjected to empirical verification. Does that mean that we reject them as false or even simply contend that we cannot know for sure? A simple example is historical testimony. We have good historical evidence that says George Washington was the first president of the United States. However, this claim cannot be empirically verified. We have to take someone’s word for it. However, using strictly empirical methods we cannot demonstrate that it is true.

A second observation is that empiricism has a major problem with general statements. For instance, empiricism cannot accept the claim that all humans have minds. In fact, empiricism cannot demonstrate than any human has a mind. The best it can do is to prove that the humans it examines have brains. Mavrodes aptly points out that to make the demand for verification a general requirement for knowledge is futile. This would of course demand that every claim to knowledge require verification ad infinitum. [Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 116]

Finally empiricism cannot justify itself empirically. How would one ever empirically verify that empiricism holds the key to all knowledge? Empiricism as a sole method for knowing the facts of reality would require that we limit what we call knowledge. [Frame]

Back to the Conversation

Given the scientist’s assertion that she rejects God on the basis that the God idea cannot be proven empirically, I had a question. I have learned, after great trouble and tribulation, how we interact with those who oppose the faith is just as important as what we have to say to them. One’s way of saying something should never distract from what one is saying. When that happens, you defeat your own purpose. So I took the Q&A approach. Any good post-grad student closing in on an advanced degree loves questions. They are prone to teach. So I took the approach that I wanted to learn from the good scientist. With that I asked, “Do you believe in logic?” Those of you trained in apologetics and philosophy already know where I am going at this point. She answered, “well of course I do I am a scientist.” As you can see, I already had enough information to place the scientist in a position that would expose her inconsistency at the very foundation of her worldview. Instead of saying something in such a way that would make her intellect feel threatened, I simply followed up with another question. Ph.D. candidates tend to have big egos and the last thing I wanted to do was to make this discussion about intellectual capacity. I did not want this to feel like a debate. I have made the mistake of doing this repeatedly in the past and it has usually not ended charitably.

As of late, I would like to think I have learned some things about my own sinful tendencies to provoke egotistical responses and by God’s grace, I have determined to take a different, more charitable course in the future. That being said, I followed the good lady’s answer with one more question: “Can you tell me what it looks like when a scientist empirically verifies that logic exists?” The scientist paused for a few seconds. And then she paused for a few seconds more. While she was thinking about how to answer my question, I followed with another question: “Can you tell me what it looks like when a scientist empirically verifies that empiricism is true?” The scientist paused again. After about a minute of consternated expressions, she looked at me and said, “you have taken this to a whole new level.” Well, I have not taken anything to a whole new level. These arguments are all over the landscape of philosophy and Christian apologetics. All I did was to take her method of reasoning and ask her to apply that method to itself. And when she did, she felt the incoherence of her own thinking. I did not have to directly attack the incongruence in her thinking. She was seeing it for herself. All I had to do was to ask the right questions so that she could arrive at this conclusion on her own. This protected her ego. This was enough to cause her to wonder if her basis for contending that God did not exist was valid or not. However, she was not entirely ready to give up defending her ultimate commitment that there was no God.

The next item to be attacked was ‘reason.’ She proceeded to challenge the concept of logic. She asked for a definition of logic. This was a brilliant move on her part. She had turned the tables of questions and answers on me and placed me on the defensive. When engaging unbelievers, the position of strength is always the offensive position. Try to avoid playing defense. If you are not careful it can turn into questions ad infinitum and you end up not able to move the discussion to Christ which is where you want it to go. My answer was “Logic is the science that governs all human cogitation.” Without logic, all hope for meaningful communication is lost. Reason no longer exists. She then attacked reason. But before she could continue her assault, I asked her another question: “Is it possible to touch a hot stove and be burned and not burned at the same time?” Can such a state exist? Can I feel pain and not feel pain at the same time? If I demonstrate that something is true empirically, can it also be false empirically? She either could not answer or would not answer these questions.

In closing our discussion, I said two things to the good scientist: before you destroy logic in your insistence to reject the God idea, you should recognize that science is destroyed along with it. Secondly, there are a number of things you believe to be true that you cannot verify empirically. If ever we get the chance to speak on the subject again, I would like to point them out to you so that you may have something more to think about when you think about why you reject the God idea.

I have not had the occasion to speak to the good scientist again. I can only hope that our exchange produced fruit by way of causing her to doubt the validity of her rejection of God. I do not know if God sent someone behind me to follow up with that discussion. God is sovereign and should it be His will, perhaps He did. It is my prayer that someone else comes along to follow up on that discussion or that our paths will cross again and I may be afforded the opportunity to press her with the question of Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that I do not in any way intend to imply that we cannot know anything by empircal means. Such a view is preposterous in my estimation. My point is that empricism, nor the scienfitic method that relies on it so heavily serve as valid means for concluding that God does not exist. The purpose of this article was to demosntrate that man's rejection of God is always based on invalid inferences in one way or another. Secondly, I hoped to impart some strategy for how one should engage the unbelieving community. Titus 3:2 instructs us to malign no one and this includes unbelievers. In fact, most commentators believe Paul has unbelievers in mind when he penned those words. I pray you find the information in this blog useful.

Critical Thinking Christian III - Case Studies

Having discussed critical thinking principles and concepts in the abstract, it is now time to apply the rules of critical thinking to the concrete. What does it look like when critical thinking is actually appropriated and incorporated in real life situations? This article covers two case studies from real life situations. Critical thinking skills will be employed to demonstrate how the correct application of those skills, using distinctly Christian presuppositions impacts the outcome of events.

Changing the Doctrinal Position of the Church

Stated current belief: Homosexual behavior is condemned by God in Scripture. No practicing homosexual can rightly be said to have a heart for God. Therefore, those who engage in the homosexual lifestyle fail to demonstrate genuine faith in Christ and are not eligible for membership in the covenant community.

Proposed revision: God loves homosexuals without condition. Homosexual behavior is a genetic condition and is therefore unavoidable. Homosexuals are what they are by an act of God’s decree and hence should not be excluded from the covenant community purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Bible does not condemn homosexual relations. Rather, the Bible condemns unlawful homosexual relations in the same way that it condemns unlawful heterosexual relations. Monogamous homosexual relationships are as acceptable to God as their heterosexual correlates.

For purposes of this exercise, it is assumed that the Bible will serve as the sole authority for how decisions are made and therefore all the evidence for making the decision will be limited to the evidence provided in Scripture. This assumption is made to keep the length of the article reasonable. Otherwise, the complex nature of this situation would quickly balloon into a master’s thesis at minimum.

The examination of this situation begins with the question, “What makes this decision necessary?” Based on the information provided, the answer appears to be that the church believes it may have misinterpreted Scripture’s position on homosexuality and that a correction to its doctrinal statement is necessary. If the church intends its doctrinal statement to accurately reflect the teachings of Scripture, and it is concerned that the current may not meet such an objective, then a change is necessary.

The second question that must be asked is, “What is recommended and on what grounds?” If it is true that the church has misinterpreted Scripture regarding homosexual behavior, then it follows that they should revise their doctrinal statement accordingly. Hence it follows that from the start, an analysis of the biblical text should be conducted to determine if in fact a misinterpretation has occurred. If we grant that one has occurred without conducting a critical examination of the evidence, we abandon the principles that buttress sound critical thinking. This would be a sin in light of 1 John 4:1. Hence, step one in the process would be to examine the textual evidence in order to determine what the Bible says about homosexuality. On the grounds that the church holds to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, it is recommended that an exegetical examination of the texts that deal with the subject of homosexual behavior be carefully re-examined using sound hermeneutical principles to arrive at the truth of God’s revealed truth regarding said behavior.

In addition, a second presupposition has been introduced in the proposal: Homosexual behavior is genetic, and therefore unavoidable. What evidence does the statement offer in support of it’s assertion that homosexual behavior is genetic? It is further recommended that attention be given to the assertion that homosexual behavior is genetic. Moreover, a third recommendation emerges concerning the human genome as it relates to the ineluctability of human behavior.

So far, sound critical thinking requires that the church reevaluate the biblical text to determine God’s revealed truth on the subject of homosexuality. The method used for this evaluation is both exegetical and hermeneutical. Second, the church will conduct a thorough examination of any research regarding the postulation that homosexual behavior is genetic. Finally, the church will review the question of deterministic behavior based on the human genome to establish if there is any truth to the hypothesis that humans cannot behave in ways that actually contradict their DNA make-up. Note that the church has already established the fact that God’s word will serve as the sole basis for their decision. Ancillary questions regarding science have no bearing on the final decision regarding homosexuality and Christian ethics.

After a thorough examination of existing research on the subject, the church concludes that there is no scientific basis for the theory that homosexual behavior is genetic. Therefore, without credible evidence in support of this proposition, it cannot be accepted. The next question regards the view that homosexual behavior is unavoidable because it is genetic. One has to ask about the logic employed in this thinking. Is this statement logically valid? Does it follow that humans cannot behave in a way that is contrary to their genetic wiring? One may argue that heterosexual men are wired to have sex with women. Does it follow then that a married man cannot avoid having sexual relations with a woman who makes herself available to him even though she is not his wife? After all, he is wired to engage with her sexually. But many men avoid such invitations successfully and they do so consistently. Even though the urge or temptation may be very real, somehow, they manage to resist the offer. Hence it does not follow that humans cannot behave in a way that is contrary to urges driven by their genetic make-up. They do so all the time. DNA is not an acceptable excuse for obscene and immoral behavior. The research has debunked the idea that humans cannot behave against their DNA structure, not to mention the belief that homosexual behavior is genetic.

The next question that critical thinking addresses is, “What are the options or alternatives?” The church could ignore sound critical thinking and simply decide that their goals are more pragmatic than simply remaining faithful to the biblical text. The church could take a survey of its members to understand what the congregants think and use this as the basis for their decision. Of course, these alternatives would require a fundamental shift in the church’s presuppositions around biblical authority. The church could simply vote on the matter and whatever position garnered the most support, then that position will become the official position of the church. The exegetical evidence from 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns both forms (dominant/soft) of homosexual behavior. The church will either have to decide if Paul spoke from the standpoint of having divine authority to make such a pronouncement or if he was writing from a position of being culturally conditioned and therefore personally biased against homosexual behavior. If the church desires to remain faithful to the authority of Scripture and sound exegetical and hermeneutical principles, it will have no choice but to reinforce its doctrinal stand against the practice of homosexual behavior. To some this may seem a radical oversimplification. However, the point here is not to get tangled in various exegetical arguments surrounding this text, but rather to demonstrate rudimentary critical thinking.

What are the possible consequences of this decision? The most significant would be that the church would have to consider a major revision of its doctrinal statement if in fact it shifts its high view of Scripture to a lower one. Every other doctrine that it holds to on the basis of biblical authority would necessarily require revisiting if the church desires consistency in its creed. If the church reinforces its prohibition against homosexual behavior, some members may leave. The church may be hurt financially or it may limit its potential to attract younger generations of people who have a more liberal view of sexual behavior. This church will have to decide why it exists in the first place. It seems likely, from a worldly standpoint, that reinforcement of the decision will hinder the church’s ability to grow. At a minimum, it seems likely that growth will be slower than desired.

How important are the consequences for those affected? For homosexuals attending the church, the consequences are serious. Their desire to be accepted and loved, by their definition of love and acceptance, will fail to be realized. They will most likely be forced to find another church in which to worship where they can be accepted and comfortably feel like they are a legitimate part of the family of God. On the flip side, if the church decides to receive homosexuals as members, those who are conservative in their theology and practice will likely leave the church in search of a community that they believe will honor Scripture as it is rightly understood based on commonly accepted methods of exegesis and interpretation. For the believer, few things are as important as the church’s view of Scripture.

When you compare the consequences with the alternatives, which one is most important? The church is the body of Christ and as such has a fundamental responsibility to uphold the teachings of Scripture. She is not free to abandon the teachings of Scripture for the more utilitarian approach of growth. Her duty is to glorify God through the proper expression of the life and teachings of Christ and His holy apostles and prophets. To move beyond this duty the church runs the risk of becoming illegitimate as a true church of Jesus Christ and therefore, irrelevant as an agent of change in the Christian community. The first mark of a true church is the teaching and preaching of sound doctrine as expressed in the written text of sacred Scripture. The consequences for shifting her position on the issue of homosexual behavior are extreme. Clearly it is more important to remain faithful to the teachings of Scripture than it is to adopt the utilitarian method.

How can the church carry out this decision? The church must reinforce its condemnation of homosexual behavior while avoiding any and all hate speech that may be easily misunderstood as hating the individual as opposed to the sin. The church has a responsibility to remain true to the text, to answer the false assertions regarding the human genome, and to reach out in love to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

There are many more components involved in the discipline of critical thinking. These represent some of the critical questions that underpin the discipline. The purpose of this article was to provide the reader with a case study of what critical thinking may look like in the concrete so that it may be incorporated into life practices. The hope is that you will pause, and consider how you think about thinking. The church family is an accountability mechanism used by God to help believers, deacons, and elders grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Critical thinking is indispensible to that end. In the next article, the critical thinking Christian will apply critical thinking skills to the question of divorce.

Hamartiology: What is Sin?

Every so often we have a moment when we realize that we have been taking something for granted that we probably should not have. I have come believe that there are a number of people in the Christian community, including pastors and elders who do not understand the nature of sin. This realization has caused me to begin to question my own understanding of the nature of sin, what it means to sin, and what actually happened in the Garden of Eden when mankind committed his first sin. For 31 years I have heard sin defined as “missing the mark.” And there is a certain degree of truth in that definition. However, I fear that while this definition may get the conversation started in the right direction, to leave it there is an excessive oversimplification. An inadequate understanding of sin necessarily results in an inadequate understanding of grace, redemption, reconciliation, and a number of other orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith.

The History of Sin

The word "sin" appears 752 times in the NASB. When you compare how often the Bible talks about sin and how often it talks about love, the results are astonishing. The word love appears 529 times in the Bible. Sin appears 42% more often in Scripture than love. In fact, the word “sin” appears more often than the word “holy.” Holy appears 677 times in the NASB. Sin appears 11% more often than holy. The first appearance of the word sin is found in Genesis 4:7 and the last time the word is used in is in Revelation 18:5. The Hebrew doctrine of sin was both rich and exceptionally intricate. In fact, David R. Seely points out, “One may count over fifty words for “sin” in biblical Hebrew, if specific as well as generic terms are isolated (DBSup 7:407–71).” The first occurrence of sin and the first use of the word “sin” are two different matters and both of them should be examined to understand the history of this phenomenon. The ominous story of how sin entered into God’s created world is located in Genesis 3. There is a clue provided for the deceitfulness of sin in the very first sentence of that chapter: וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה translates to, Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field. ערום (ʿārûm) is the Hebrew word translated crafty. The word means shrewd, sensible, or prudent. The Hebrew compound word mikol brings together the preposition min together with the noun kol and is literally rendered “from all.” The basic idea that one gathers from this construction is that the serpent was distinctly prudent, wise, and crafty when compared to the other animals of the field. It is not a mistake that Moses points this out as he begins to record the fateful story of man’s tragic fall into sin. The point is that from the beginning of the story of sin, deceit occupies a prominent place. This observation cannot be overemphasized. The context of the serpent’s craftiness clearly points to a craftiness with words that were used to exercise deceit with the woman as Satan seduced her to partake of the forbidden fruit. The strategic move by Satan to use the wisest animal of the field was no accident. Satan is an exceptional being possessing exceptional talent, skill, and intelligence that far exceeds that of the most able human. It is only fitting that he would select the most capable cohort to accomplish his mission of deceit.

The Nature of Sin

The episode in the Garden is ominous and dark as we read about the first lie to ever occur in human history, “you will not surely die.” This was the first promise of sin. Sin promises life and life more richly and pleasantly than one could ever imagine. The second lie sin promised was, “your eyes will be opened.” Paul says that the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the eyes of unbelievers. (I Cor. 4:4) The third lie that sin promised, “You shall be like God.” More than anything else, the entrance of sin into human history began with a desire for autonomy. Man wanted freedom . Sin entered the world because man wanted life, knowledge, and freedom on his own terms. Herman Bavinck says it this way,

"In Genesis 3, the issue is not primarily the content of the knowledge that humans would appropriate by disobedience but the manner in which they would obtain it. The nature of the knowledge of good and evil in view here is characterized by the fact that humans would be like God as a result of it (Gen. 3:5, 22). By violating the command of God and eating of the tree, they would make themselves like God in the sense that they would position themselves outside and above the law and, like God, determine and judge for themselves what good and evil was.” [Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, Vol. 3, 33.]

Sin is therefore man’s desire to live on his own terms, to know on his own terms, and to be absolutely free according to his definition of freedom. In short, man wanted to replace God by becoming god in his own right. Hence the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life were born by the one act of Adam and Eve to transgress the expressed will and desire of God. Since that time, no human being has ever lived who has not been found a sinner, sinning against his Creator. Bavinck continues, “The knowledge of good and evil is not the knowledge of the useful and the harmful, of the world and how to control it, but (as in 2 Sam.19:36; Isa. 7:16) the right and capacity to distinguish good and evil on one’s own.” [Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, Vol. 3, 33.]

The term used to describe man’s initial sin is referred to as original sin. While original sin is denied by many in the visible church because of the aberrant teachings of one Pelagius, nevertheless, the true doctrine of Scripture has been graciously preserved in historic Christian orthodoxy. As mentioned earlier, the historical account of the beginning of sin is recorded in Genesis 3. One of the best indicators to understanding the true nature of sin is to examine how God has responded to it historically and how he will respond to it in the future. God’s response to sin in Genesis 3 was felicitous given the nature of his own holiness. Even though God had enjoyed rich fellowship with Adam and Eve in the Garden, and even though His love for them was unshaken by their act of rebellion, His action against them was swift and deliberate. It is not a Christian trait to presume that God excuses sin in the name of love, grace or any other element of kindness found in His being. God’s response to Adam and Eve should serve as a basis for how He thinks and feels about sin. We should continually reflect upon the tragedy of this historical event and allow it to inform our own attitude and disposition toward sin.

So what is sin? What do we actually do when we sin? Socrates thought the cause and essence of sin consisted solely in ignorance. Hence the person who knows the good is good and acts according to the good. [Bavinck, 41] Of course this begs the question of how two perfect beings such as Adam and Eve could have ever sinned. Surely they were not ignorant. Sin is not a problem of reason. Reason alone cannot help us. Sin is something more than ignorance, something more than incorrect reasoning. Sin is not simply a matter of the will alone. We cannot will our way to perfection. No human has ever been able to pull this off. To reiterate, a misunderstanding of the nature of sin has far-reaching theological implications, not only in the area of systematics, but especially in the areas of practice and counseling. Bavinck observes, “Outside the area of special revelation, therefore, sin was always either interpreted deistically in terms of human will and construed purely as an act of the will or derived pantheistically from the essence of things and incorporated as a necessary component in the order of the universe as a whole. [Bavinck, 42] People usually do not realize they are taking a deistic approach to sin until it is pointed out to them. When we locate sin as purely in the will, it allows us to classify it on varying degrees and the standard we invoke is usually not God’s standard, but our own. This behavior goes back to knowing good and evil on our own terms. Only revelation can truly inform us of the true nature of sin.

Was Pelagius correct in locating sin in the human will? The champion of freewill thinking contends that this is precisely where sin is located and that each human falls individually when they sin. But this is not the doctrine of sin as held by historic Christian orthodoxy. Robert Duncan Culver defines sin as a principle, saying, “In a related (but not identical) way sin (singular number again) is a principle.” [Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical & Historical, 340] Culver goes on to talk about sin as a law. Indeed, Paul viewed sin as a law in Romans 7:23, where he explicitly referred to the law of sin. The Greek phrase is "τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας." (TO NOMO TES HAMARTIAS) Sin cannot be simply an act of the will as the will itself does not operate in a vacuum. Humans only will to do what the mind thinks is best. Therefore, reason and desire are antecedents to volition. However, one may ask how forbidden desire initially emerged in our first parents? This is indeed a mystery. Herman Bavinck writes, “The impossibility of explaining the origin of sin, therefore, must not be understood as an excuse, a refuge for ignorance. Rather, is should be said openly and clearly: we are here at the boundaries of our knowledge. Sin exists, but it will never be able to justify its existence. It is unlawful and irrational.” [Bavinck, 70.]

Sin is a law that exists within our members. Paul explicitly teaches as much in Romans 7. This makes sin an ineluctable reality in our life. The will, intellect, and emotion are all involved in the covenant-breaking action of sin. Sin is a moral act that contradicts the expressed will of God for human behavior. In other words, it is a covenantal breach with the Divine covenant maker. It is not limited to the will, the intellect, or the emotion. Sin involves the whole person. A person is tempted when they are drawn away of their own lust (desire). The mind considers the matter, the desire is either allowed to grow or is dismissed and the person decides (wills) to act on the desire that was initially conceived in the intellect. James defines sin as the insemination of carnal cravings in our person. We are tempted when we are drawn away by our own cravings or desires, and when those desires are rationalized, the will carries us home to the final act. Desire is first base, rationalization is second base, the willful act is third base, and home plate is sin. We have reached the end when we reach home plate. These selfish lusts involve any desire that is placed before the covenantal relationship. Hence we see a glimpse of the battle that takes place in mind between good and evil thoughts and the desires of the heart that often tempt us to wander from the God we love.

As members of the covenant community, we each have a moral obligation and mandate to keep the covenant. Moreover, covenant keeping requires a comprehensive keeping of the entire covenant. One does not have to break every point in the covenant to be guilty of covenant breaking. Nor does one have to break only certain aspects of the covenant to be guilty of covenant breaking. One only needs to refuse to keep one point of the covenant to be in breach of the covenant. Moreover, God does not punish people because they broke a particular point in the covenant. God punishes people because they broke the covenant. It isn’t in how they broke the covenant. Nor is it how often they broke the covenant. It is the fact of covenant breaking that makes sin what it is. Sin is the intellectual decision to carry out a desire willingly to breach the covenant, and in so doing, to reject God’s offer of a covenantal relationship. God's offer of a covenantal relationship requires complete agreement to keep every aspect of the covenant. Breaching God’s covenantal offer is rejecting God’s relational offer. God relates to us by means of a covenant. One cannot reject the terms of that covenant offer and at the same time enjoy the benefit of relationship with God. The sad reality is that what man wants is a non-binding, non-covenantal relationship with God. Such a relationship does not exist, nor can it.

“We conclude that sin constitutes the breaking of the covenant. This perspective implies that sin does not just represent a transgression of formal rules. It goes deeper. It is directed against the sovereign Creator, who not only creates life, but also wants his people to experience a lasting communion with himself. Therefore sin constitutes opposition to the Creator who commits himself to grant life to man.” [J. van Gendersen & W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, 396]

The consequences of this view are wide sweeping. A covenant breaker in this way cannot condemn another for being a covenant breaker in a different way. However, this is precisely what we do when we judge others hypocritically. Not only do we not have the right to pick and choose which parts of the covenant we want to break, we do not have the right to set up degrees of covenant breaking. There are no degrees of covenant breaking. We are all guilty of sin, and we all have a sin nature. This means we are all covenant breakers. It is only by grace that God has called us to a higher manner of life and empowered us to progress to higher degrees of obedience in this life. There is only one kind of sinner, and that is a covenant breaker. Some sinners God has elected to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Others, he has passed over, permitting his radiant glory to be displayed in his righteous judgment.

Unless we understand that we are all equally guilty of being sinners and of breaking God’s covenant and that no one among us is any less a covenant breaker than anyone else, love and unity will always be a state we fail to realize. Grace has rescued us in the form of Jesus Christ who has kept the covenant perfectly in our stead, NCT notwithstanding. All humans are sinners in precisely the same way. We are all covenant breakers in various ways. But covenant breaking is covenant breaking. Sin is sin because it is a breach of the divine covenant. Sin is not sin apart from the fact that it breaches the covenant. In this light, adultery and lying are the same. Murder and slander are the same. In fact, in Galatians 5, the only thing separating idolatry from jealousy is a comma. However, we live in a culture that desperately, and self-righteously I might add, wishes to set up its own standards and treat the sin of jealousy or the sin of immorality differently from the sin of idolatry or the sin of murder. We attack homosexual behavior vociferously and condemn abortion with great exuberance. But we allow those who break the covenant by hating their brother to pass by without a word. We tolerate the sin of slander and even unrighteous divorce while engaging in contumacy ourselves around the hard task of biblical correction and discipline. We say, my sin is different from your sin and you are a sinner in a way that I am not a sinner. We even accuse others of doing things that we could never do. This kind of thinking clearly indicates that a return to Scripture and a careful and critical examination of the doctrines of sin, grace, justification, and numerous others are essential if we hope to objurgate such egregious deviations from historic Christian orthodoxy. Let such hope forever occupy our thoughts and prayers. And not only this, but let us find the courage to stand up for truth and in love, correct those who stray, for the sake of the gospel and the witness of Jesus Christ.

Critical Thinking Christians – II

“Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.” Aristotle

“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” Socrates

When it comes to the practice of critical thinking, there is so much material to cover that it is difficult to know where to begin. Should one begin with the elements of thought? Should something be said about metaphysics? Or should one begin with a word on epistemology? Flip a coin I suppose. However, the reason I titled the article “Critical Thinking Christians” is because I wanted to talk about the elements of thought from a distinctly Christian perspective. Critical thinking is not without presuppositions. There are foundational presuppositions that are necessary to engage in the practice from any perspective, but then there are specific points of view that serve to narrow the playing field if you will. For example, a critical thinking atheist will start their thinking from a very different point of view than a theist. For instance, both the atheist and the theist contend that logic is the science or system that governs all human thought. In short, logic is ordered thinking. Logic provides the rails upon which the train of cogitation travels. Both assert the unavoidable necessity of logic for all predication. Hence, logic is a necessary aspect of critical thinking regardless of one’s point of view on the more narrow issues. Without logic, thinking is cogitative chaos. Norman Geisler defines it this way,

“Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking.” [Geisler, Norman. Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking, 13]

Neutrality and Critical Thinking

Since critical thinking involves elements of thought that entail different assumptions, the question of neutrality should be given some attention. It is my contention that critical thinking is possible because God, the Creator of all that is, made it so from the beginning. Prior commitments are impossible to avoid. A created being must bring prior commitments to every conversation to one degree or another. The fact of prior commitments invalidates the proposition that one can achieve a status of neutrality when approaching a subject. The modern mindset however vehemently takes issue with this view. Alfred North Whitehead asserted, “In philosophical discussions, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly.” But doesn’t this statement itself indicate that Mr. Whitehead is quite dogmatically certain of his view. Indeed it does. Hence, the on-going need for critical thinking is easily demonstrated even in the writings of some of the most educated and skillful philosophers of years past. As Greg Bahnsen writes,

“Because of man’s fall into sin, the world is inherently hostile to the Christian faith. From the time of the fall, enmity is the controlling principle separating the believer and unbeliever. (Gen. 3:15; John 15:19; Rom. 5:10; James 4:4) [Bahnsen, Greg. Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg Bahnsen, 13]

The noetic effects of sin make every behavior humans engage in a matter of ethics. Our claims to knowledge, morality, and metaphysics are as much ethical claims as they are anything else. Hence, it follows that the practice of critical thinking is also an ethical undertaking. As believers we are entirely committed to the truthfulness of God’s revelation in Scripture and sworn to uphold the Christian ethic. Therefore, it follows that we are committed to thinking in a very specific manner. It is not noble or honorable to abandon one’s most basic commitments in order to engage in a practice that is ultimately designed by a holy God who has prescribed the very parameters that are to govern the practice. Such dismissive behavior on the part of Christians represents a real problem in the Christian community, and without fully intending the pun, reflects a lack of critical thinking on their part that is fully submitted to honoring Scripture. And this is the whole point of an article addressing the “Critical Thinking Christian.” Oswald Chambers writes,

“Never run away with the idea that it does not matter much what we believe or think; it does. What we think and believe, we are – not what we say we think and believe, but what we really do think and believe, we are; there is no divorce at all.” [Chambers, Oswald. Biblical Ethics: Ethical Principles for the Christian Life, 221]

How do we know what we really think and believe. We know what we really think and believe by what we do. James says, you have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18) James is saying that we show people what we believe by how we live. Saying we believe something while living like we don’t is useless in James’ words. The word James uses for useless describes someone who idle or unemployed. In other words, an unemployed worker is an oxy-moron. A worker who does not work is not a worker. A worker works. Peter tells us that if the qualities of godliness are found in us they will make it so that we are not useless or unfruitful. (1 Peter 1:8) The list of qualities Peter outlines concern behaviors that are clearly visible in the life of the believer. Hence, thinking is a behavior that is subject to the Christian ethic the same as any other behavior.

Nuts and Bolts

To be critical, thinking has to meet certain standards – of clarity, relevance, reasonableness, etc. – and one may be more or less skilled at this. [Fisher, 11] Critical thinking requires questioning and metacognition (thinking about your own thinking. [Fisher, 11] Critical thinking requires skilled and active interpretation. Interpretation requires careful analysis and asking the right questions as one considers several possible alternatives. Critical thinking always begins with a question. When a critical thinker reads a text, they begin with the question, “what did I read?” What is the author saying? Evaluation of the text cannot begin until the text has been rightly interpreted. In the interpretation process there are multifaceted questions that go to the original or intended meaning of the author. Since this article concerns critical thinking that is distinctly Christian in nature, the author rejects the interpretive method known as deconstructionism as a valid means for understanding a text. Once the text is rightly understood, the evaluation process can begin. Is the author’s claim, assertion, or record accurate? It is one thing for us to understand that Scripture claims that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, but it is quite another for us to accept that assertion. In fact, many do not. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day is rejected by many based on their strict adherence to the scientific method. Other’s accept the possibility that Christ really did rise from the dead, but conclude that God was not actively involved at all. They argue that indeed a fascinating event appears to have happened, and that in time, science will be able to figure it out. Critical thinking involves prior commitments that we all bring to the table. And with those commitments, we bring a set of questions in an attempt to understand the object we are observing, be it a text, a person, communication, etc. It is beyond the scope of this article to interact with the numerous presuppositions that undergird the practice of critical thinking. This would require a discussion around such topics as epistemology, metaphysics, and linguistics, not to mention several others. Suffice it to say that critical thinking depends on a number of factors we will assume to be true for the sake of argument. Otherwise, it is doubtful that much progress could be made in provoking thought in such a crucial behavior. And that is the whole point of this article. The aim is, at the end of the day, perlocutionary. The aspiration is that, after reading this article, you become so interested in the behavior of critical thinking, that you will do something about it. Critical thinking is about making a decision about something. It could be the meaning of a text, the observed behavior of a person, or the purchase of an item. On page 163 of his book, Critical Thinking: an Introduction, Alex Fisher creates a thinking map. That map can be very useful in walking through how to make a good decision using sound principles of critical thinking. The questions contained in that map are as follows:

1. What makes this decision Necessary?
2. What is Recommended and on what Grounds?
3. What are the Options/Alternatives?
4. What are the Possible Consequences of the various options – and How Likely are they?
5. How Important are these consequences – for all those affected?
6. When I Compare the alternatives in the light of their consequences, which is best? Is the recommended course best?
7. How can I carry out this decision? (Contingency plans?)
[Source: Fisher, Alec. Critical Thinking: an Introduction, Cambridge, 163.]
The answer for many of these questions is going to depend on one’s ultimate commitments. For instance, take the question of ordaining a practicing homosexual to the pastorate. In such a case, one’s view of Scripture, not to mention their hermeneutic becomes vitally important. While the questions must be answered in this case, two people coming with two completely different positions will work through the same questions and arrive at very different conclusions. While the practice of critical thinking is indispensible to understanding, it does not follow that adherence to these principles is a safeguard against false conclusions. Of considerable import then are the presuppositions that one brings to critical thinking.

The Ethics of Thinking

Human cogitation is a behavior and as such should be subjected to certain ethical questions. For believers, the supreme ethical question is, “Is its primary motive to honor God?” If the answer to that question is no, then we have an unethical behavior on our hands from a Christian perspective. Hence, laziness in any way, shape, or form does not honor God. God hasn’t a lazy component in His being. And therefore, Christians should avoid all tendency toward laziness. Unreflective thinking is lazy thinking.

Unreflective thinking is not only antithetical to critical thinking, but also to Christian ethics. The command that we are to test the spirits because of the presence of false prophets ( 1 John 4:1) is clearly an example of God’s expectations for Christians to avoid the laziness of unreflective thinking. Simply put, unreflective thinking is about taking the cogitative short-cut. Unreflective thinkers jump to conclusions, fail to examine all the evidence, refuse to look at the possible alternatives, and rush to rash judgments. This command also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between sound teaching and false teaching. Hence, critical thinking is necessary to please God.

The believer’s primary concern is to please God. Genuine believers love to please God. Nothing is more important to the Christian than pleasing their heavenly Father. In order for believers to please God, they must keep God’s word. (John 8:47; 1 John 2:5) The word of God has perlocutionary intent. That is, it seeks to change us from the something that we are, to something else. Our purpose for picking up the sacred Scripture is change. We desire to know God more and to walk more like Christ. Scripture informs us how we are to conduct our lives. But Scripture requires proper interpretation and interpretation requires critical thinking skills. Hence, while critical thinking is indispensible to sound reasoning, it does not ipso facto guarantee that you will arrive at a right conclusion. What it does guarantee is that your conclusion will most likely be a valid one. But a valid or reasonable conclusion is not the same thing as a truthful conclusion. All thinking, and especially critically thinking must be engaged in according to God’s model. We must think God’s thoughts after Him. The only right way to think is to think like God thinks. We are to think analogously to how God thinks. In short, our thinking must be informed by Scripture. Any and all thinking that does not have Scripture as its starting and ending point is idolatrous. Therefore, every critical-thinking Christian takes up these principles with an ultimate commitment to please God by humbly submitting their mind to the sacred text of God’s communicative revelation. Paul writes in Phil. 4:7, “And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”

In part three of this series on Critical-Thinking Christians, the principles of sound critical thinking will be applied using a case study in order to illustrate what critical thinking looks like in real life. The appropriation of critical thinking skills is essential to every Christian in the community of faith. These skills will go a very long way in helping us honor God, not only in how we think, but especially in how we live.